Users who Dugg This
jimbodeenie
138 Followers
Global Financial Integrity
23 Followers
Shovelbaby
2110 Followers
Art Thou Bored
2897 Followers
Genghis Khan
834 Followers
Larry Cooper
183 Followers
mikeyh0Oct 21, 2010
First of all, the IRS should not be publishing the information of a business. Or mine, either. But they do let that info out a lot, don't they? Why should I know that Willie Nelson didn't pay his taxes way back? What purpose does this sharing of personal data serve? It keeps folks riled is all. If Google has figured a way to circumvent the tax laws, great. Beats Rangel's assertions of simply forgetting huge hunks of personal income. Or Geithner not filing at all. No laws broken by Google.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jhbarrOct 21, 2010
Google's a public company so their taxes are in their SEC filings. Willie Nelson broke the law, so we know just like we know about any other person who commits a crime.
Closed AccountOct 21, 2010
I expect all the liberal bloggers to be writing derivative irate blogs about how evil Google is.
ShovelbabyOct 21, 2010
While I find it humorous that this is one of the dems pet companies (#5 top donor of Obama) because it should anger their class warfare base, if it isn't illegal, than why should we care? If you look at this another way, their business contributed billions to the economy rather than stole from the economy through "loopholes".
How I wish we didn't have our present income tax system. This gives the government the ability to write laws that play favories. We should have a system that is fair for everyone in the opportunity to make and keep their earnings and doesn't allow things like this to happen. We should also have a system that doesn't make it a crime or a potential to bankrupt you if you make a mistake preparing these overly complex taxes. fairtax.org!
bluto36Oct 21, 2010
it why you support dems... to make sure you do get the big breaks.
linuxpersonOct 21, 2010
"We should have a system that is fair for everyone in the opportunity to make and keep their earnings and doesn't allow things like this to happen."
Or we could just do away with the whole notion of forced taxation and allow people to spend their money on a purely voluntary basis. I know it sounds crazy, but freedom does work.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
gransaterOct 21, 2010
Oh yeah, sure it works, if converting every single service the government now performs into a for profit business.
Who'll pay for roads, police, military, air force, navy, border guards, swat teams, fire brigades, forest fire fighting equipment, who'll spot a forest fire, food safety, product safety in general, protect the public against gouging by companies, air traffic control, coast guard, animal control, accident investigation, and so on and on and on. I live in MN, so what do I care about border patrol? Let NM pay for that.
It not only sounds crazy, you know what, it IS crazy. Someone said that freedom has its price. All too many are unwilling to pay that price, to let others cover their share. In many instances it may be legal, but is it moral, is it Christian, is it compassionate, is it right??
We're moving slowly towards a society such as Babel's. We understand each other in language, but we're drifting apart so far from each other in though and soul, that if a Martian walked by us, we'd walk right on by without a second though that something is amiss.
Why is it that some people want to take a giant step back in time, and bring about a society with the morals and societal conditions of the 1800's or in some cases the 1700's? We're living in the 21st century. It's time everybody realizes this fact, and face the realities and responsibilities of our times, and leave the past as the great teaching tool it is. It isn't coming back, short of a cataclysmic occurrence, and if that happens, I pity those left.
oatlordOct 22, 2010
Blah blah, too many words for a response that failed to understand what LinuxPerson was referring to. He's talking about adopting the Fair Tax or a consumption based tax system, not privatizing the government.
And he's right. Articles like this only illustrate what a monumental failure our tax code is.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
spectecjrOct 22, 2010
"Fair" Taxes, and Consumption based tax systems are tilted towards those who already have capital, and against small businesses and startups.
digger1123Oct 28, 2010
I'm all for lower taxes, but are you out of your mind? That is one of the stupidest f**king ideas ever.
inajeepOct 21, 2010
I don't find it humorous but it will slide by any action just like the oil companies. Cayman's and the oil companies have a long and profitable relationship.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/04/business/04bptax.html
I'd love for the hole to be plugged to bring back the money back into the US.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
korberosOct 22, 2010
Oh look an article about Google.... better mention oil companies.
inajeepOct 22, 2010
It is called perspective.
boulderbumOct 21, 2010
So much for "don't be evil", Google. First wanting to kill net neutrality because of the profitable partnership with Verizon, and now dodging paying your part of the tax burden in the country you live and thrive in. Poor show!
We don't need to transition to a regressive tax system like the "fair" tax as a response to such tax-dodging, we need to close the loopholes for unethical corporations!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
celticduckOct 21, 2010
The fair tax would close all the loopholes...and wipe out most of the inefficiencies of the system. Actually read the book, learn what it is before throwing out standard buzzwords like it being a regressive system. You sound just like the politicians. Please learn what you speak of first.
boulderbumOct 21, 2010
The "fair" tax IS a loophole. Any consumption tax is regressive by its nature.
In order to maintain revenue neutrality you MUST end up raising the effective tax rate on the middle class to compensate for the money wealthy corporations and individuals save instead of spend.
Ask the average middle class family if they want to pay sales tax on their next house.
stealthspcOct 21, 2010
"Ask the average middle class family if they want to pay sales tax on their next house."
Assuming they don't buy a new house, it's tax free. Yeah, I think middle class families would love that. FairTax is only a tax on new goods.
celticduckOct 22, 2010
Boulderbum. First of all. stop with the regressive thing. It is not regressive. Charging everyone the same is fair. That is the definition of fair.
Second you state that you must raise the effective tax rate on the middle class, well under the fairtax you can't rate the rate on one level of income people like you state. Wealthy people spend more than middle class people. They buy more expensive cars, spend more on clothes, on most things. They would be taxed more as you are only taxed on what new goods you buy.
Also with no taxes on businesses we become the tax haven for business, meaning business would move into this country to avoid taxation elsewhere, bringing in huge sums of money.
Now go look at how much money is spent by the IRS to collect our taxes. All of that is savings. Go take a look at the tax law, I havent looked in a while but it huge, like 45,000 pages or something, go google it. Now being the good citizen that you are I am sure you have read it all, and understand it completely because you are liable for any mistakes you make (even if you call the IRS for help with it). I don't remember the numbers off the top of my head, but we as a country spend a lot of Billions of dollars just trying to figure out what we should be paying. All of that is savings as well.
Tax law should not be about politics but about math.
boulderbumOct 22, 2010
@celticduck - you fundamentally misunderstand the nature of regressive consumption taxes. Yes, the sales tax rate is the same for all goods, but the rich spend less and invest more than middle class families, so their effective tax rate is lower. That's a simple, widely established and understood, indisputable fact:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regressive_tax
FairTax is simply a clever brand for a tax cut on the rich that forces the middle class to pay higher taxes. There's nothing "fair" about it.
stealthspcOct 22, 2010
"There's nothing "fair" about it."
Woah woah woah. You're saying that the rich having to pay the majority of the taxes now is fair? This would make you pay taxes based upon your consumption, entirely fair.
spectecjrOct 22, 2010
stealthspc - ok, so on the day that the fair tax is enacted, we'll reset the entire system. Everyone starts with nothing. From that point on? We'll just keep fair tax. Then let the system evolve as it may. That would be fair.
However... yes, the rich paying more IS fair. They use more resources.
stealthspcOct 23, 2010
"However... yes, the rich paying more IS fair. They use more resources."
You should read up on FairTax. Since it's a sales tax, the people who consume more pay more. Your argument is illogical. Canada and the UK already do this. It's called VAT. It's not that crazy of a concept.
norman619Oct 22, 2010
How are they being "evil?" You even know the meaning of the word? You want an example of evil look at NAZI Germany. Look at Mao and Stalin. These are examples of true evil. I am so tired of ignorant kids like you using the word evil to label anything you don't agree with or envy.
boulderbumOct 22, 2010
Norman, I think you need to learn the meaning of the word "kid". I'm a 30 year old father of four.
If you read the article, you'll see that Abraham J. Briloff, a professor emeritus of accounting at Baruch College in New York, uses the same language to describe Google.
Granted, Google does have it going for them that they're not as evil as Nazis, that's a plus I guess, but there are varying degrees of evil.
Getting taxpayer funded scholarships to develop research that leads to one of the most successful corporations in America, then exploiting tax loopholes to dodge paying your fair share certainly can be considered evil.
Closed AccountOct 21, 2010
Oh jesus...the fairtax crap again. Son...move aside. This conversation is for smart people. Adults.
stealthspcOct 21, 2010
You've obviously never studied FairTax. It's not as crazy as everyone would have you believe. This abolishes income tax and places it in the form of sales tax instead. If 20% sales tax seems high, you should look at your paycheck and see how much money they are taking from you already.
Don't want to spend your paycheck? Cool. You have more money in your pocket to save and earn interest on.
ShovelbabyOct 26, 2010
It looks like the adults buried you.
danconiaOct 21, 2010
Voluntaryism FTW
lmptkOct 22, 2010
Here is a well thought out solution
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_main
Closed AccountOct 21, 2010
This is why we need the FairTax.
phydeaux70Oct 21, 2010
This is another reason we need lower taxes...period. This is one of the Lefts favorite companies, yet they don't even want to funnel their money through the US because the tax rates are so high. I bet if they lowered the corporate tax rate to 15%, not only Google, but other companies would follow suit.
Another example of how lowering taxes raises income. Too bad tax and spend, tax cheating liberals don't get that.
Closed AccountOct 21, 2010
"This is another reason we need lower taxes...period"
Our taxes are at the lowest level they've been in more than 50 years. And how do you expect to cut taxes if we're already at nearly 14 trillion in our national debt and our deficit skyrocketing? Lowering taxes is just fiscal irresponsibility if you ask me.
linuxpersonOct 21, 2010
"Our taxes are at the lowest level they've been in more than 50 years."
WTF are you talking about? Taxes include more than just Federal income tax genius.
Lay off the Michael Moore propaganda.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountOct 21, 2010
Okay, but still nobody has answered how are we supposed to pay for lower taxes?
UphemismOct 21, 2010
Kward - As a conservative, allow me to explain the general mindset, although I thought it was obvious.
If you lower personal taxes, you give the people their money to do with as they please. As they satisfy their needs and wants with their own money, they will be spending that money. That consumerism, is what drives growth, and that growth brings in more revenue.
Also, the government doesn't have "to pay" for lower taxes -they merely have to adjust their expenditures. Unfortunately, those in DC like to spend, spend, spend... and that, comes at a cost. The cost now, might be your standard of life for the foreseeable future.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
gransaterOct 21, 2010
@ Linuxperson
"WTF are you talking about? Taxes include more than just Federal income tax genius"
So, by that statement you're saying that the taxes you're really against are at the local level, not the Federal level.
Explain why you're so adamantly against paying the federal side, while by all indications, until now, totally ignoring the local obligation, by complete silence in its regard.
entroperOct 21, 2010
No, it's only impossible to argue for higher taxes when you MISunderstand those concepts, rightwingext. The Laffer Curve especially is one of the most misunderstood, and therefore, abused, principles. There is a point on the curve of maximum revenue. You are assuming we are past that point, but the opposite is more likely to be true.
entroperOct 22, 2010
No, I didn't fail to look it up, I just only had time to respond to one of your points before dinner. The Laffer Curve is thrown about far more often on Digg, so it was a much quicker topic to write about. Once again, your assumption is incorrect.
The observation that is central to Hauser's Law is about the only thing that "isn't up for debate". The underlying reasons for WHY government revenues have remained stable with respect to GDP are very much up for debate, which anyone who reads any further than Hauser's original WSJ article would know. I'll give you a hint to get you started: Income tax from individuals is not the only source of government revenue.
So please drop the personal attacks, and please stop assuming that if others knew what you knew, they couldn't possibly disagree with you and be right.
apokalyps2547Oct 22, 2010
entroper isn't wrong here.
If the current marginal tax rate is below "t*" on the Laffer curve, then government revenue should increase (according to the curve) AND the GDP should increase (according to Hauser's law).
ryanparmstrongOct 22, 2010
Cut services. Easy/Best way to lower taxes!
entroperOct 22, 2010
As I already explained, it doesn't necessarily show that changing the income tax rate has no effect on government revenue as a percentage of GDP. The individual income tax rate is not the only thing that has changed since the 1950s. Receipts from both individual and corporate income taxes have come down since then, while receipts from payroll taxes have gone up. All this shows is that Washington has decreased one tax rate while making up the difference by increasing another.
And just for kicks, why don't we go ahead and look at the last three decades. When Reagan assumed office, the top income tax bracket was 70%, and income taxes were 9.3% of GDP. He slashed taxes first to 50% and then 28%. Bush 41 was forced by the end of his term to increase the top rate back to 31%. By this time, income taxes had fallen to 7.9% of GDP. Clinton assumed office and raised taxes. By the end of Clinton's term, income tax receipts had climbed to 9.9% of GDP. Bush 43 took over and cut taxes. When he left office, income tax receipts were down to 6.7% of GDP. Even at the peak of the economic bubble before the recession, tax receipts only reached 8.5% of GDP, lower than they were under Clinton.
All of this data is easily available -- it was the first link when I googled for it. You might try looking at it sometime before throwing insults. I promise it is well within the bounds of "simple thinking skills".
danconiaOct 21, 2010
You just had to make it partisan, didn't you? Both parties are a joke...
gransaterOct 21, 2010
@phydeaux
"I bet if they lowered the corporate tax rate to 15%, not only Google, but other companies would follow suit."
You BET!? You don't know, yet you are willing to really put the country further into the red, economically speaking, on a hunch!
Google and the other companies would do what? Make more profit?, pay taxes?, lower the price of their products and services? What? Volunteer to pay 15% taxes. Why not 16%, or, for that matter, why not 17%. Where is this magical barrier when they balk at paying their fair share of taxes, to do business in this country? I ask again, you BET?!
"Another example of how lowering taxes raises income"
Actually, yes, you're right. Pay less taxes, you income goes up. Exactly how does that help current deficit?
"Too bad tax and spend, tax cheating liberals don't get that".
As opposed to conservatives who don't even whisper dissent at initiating two wars, use every legal means they can to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. Oh no sir, only Liberals cheat, spend other peoples money, etc.
No, conservatives do get that. You are the guys that wrote the book on it. Sure you get it. Next you're going to say that only Liberals have money, complain that conservatives pay the majority of taxes, this despite the fact that the conservatives earn the majority of income. Yeah, its too bad you can't get Liberals to lower your taxes further. Just maybe that is because to many of them DO get it.
phydeaux70Oct 21, 2010
I can't tell if you're being dense because you subscribe to the liberal policies that Obama and his ilk like, or if it's because you truly don't understand economics, so I'll try to be fair.
If you reduce taxes you allow for companies to retain more of their money, increasing profits, which are then either re-invested, kept, or returned to investors if they are a publicly traded company such as Apple, in the form of a dividend or in general in an increase in stock price.
Any of those, less the 'keep' option keep more liquidity in the market, allowing for quick expenditures or reinvestment. What our current government wants to do with increasing taxes is take that money away from the investor or company owner, and give it to the government so it can hand it out in the ways that they seem most fit.
The only way to reduce the deficit is to increase taxes, and decrease spending. Right now the liberals are in favor of increased taxes but they haven't done anything except increase spending. (Granted the GOP prior to 2006 also did a poor job at this). When Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush reduced taxes it actually increased the net tax receipts to the country, because people would continue to reinvest. Right now, nobody wants to reinvest, and it is expressly why corporations are holding on to trillions of dollars, because this administration has demonized everybody who makes money, and is in general anti-business.
Just google Obama policies and anti-business and you'll see. In the end what it comes down to is this; government never makes money for anybody. The only reason America rose to its standing in the world is because of the free market, and minimal government intervention.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
gransaterOct 21, 2010
@ phydeaux
Did you read the header? It says " Google 2.4% rate..........."
Why don't you just advocate suspending corporate tax altogether. It would appear you think 2.4% is too much to pay in taxes on earnings.
Nuff said.
UnfashenomicOct 22, 2010
gransatar: "You BET!? You don't know, yet you are willing to really put the country further into the red, economically speaking, on a hunch!"
There are actually economists who do studies on this sort of thing. It's not guesswork - lower taxes do support economic growth. For example, if you type: tax rates economic growth regression into Google and click "I'm Feeling Lucky" you'll find a paper, 'Tax Structure and Economic Growth' which after a statistical analysis, concludes "a cut in the corporate tax rate by ten percentage points will raise the annual growth rate by one to two percentage points." Other people have presented the analytic reasons why low taxes are good for growth, and the intuition behind those arguments definitely isn't "guesswork."
Most of the replies favoring current/higher taxes are based on the error of composition - "tax the companies, they can afford it!" Companies are a legal entity and can't pay taxes, just the people who work and invest in them. Faced with a higher tax rate, the options for Google's CEO are (1) reduce the dividend rate on shares, hurting investors and maybe tanking the company (2) cut costs within the firm, probably by laying off employees or (3) moving some business overseas to reduce tax liability. None of those are desirable, but it's the reality created by higher taxes.
gransatar: "Volunteer to pay 15% taxes. Why not 16%, or, for that matter, why not 17%. Where is this magical barrier when they balk at paying their fair share of taxes, to do business in this country? I ask again, you BET?!"
Rational decisions are made on the margin. So YES, there is some 'magical barrier' (otherwise known as a 'marginal cost curve') that each firm uses when deciding how much to produce. When taxes cut into profits, at some % it will stop being profitable to do business in the U.S., and companies go overseas to places with lower taxes and less red tape. If corporate taxes were lower, more foreign businesses would be coming here to take advantage of OUR open market system and hire OUR workers. But that's not happening, and the reasons are entirely predictable.
"It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a ‘dismal science.’ But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance."
— Murray N. Rothbard
Think about it.
phydeaux70Oct 21, 2010
I also must say that this 'lost' revenue valued at $60 billion is per year. Over a 10 year period that is $600 billion, almost enough to compensate for the continued tax rates for all people in the entire United States that make over $250K a year.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
norman619Oct 22, 2010
LOL!!! Corp taxes pay for government. The income tax has pretty much been going to pay down the INTEREST on the national debt. None of it goes to pay for government. Now that that debt has ballooned to a new mind-blowing size we can't even pay that. People like you who have no understanding of the financial crisis we are in should stop, do some research, THEN come back and join the debate. A good start for you would be to watch I.O.U.S.A. It breaks down how screwed we are and it will likely piss you off.
korberosOct 22, 2010
Not... even.... close. Wow.
noyb1Oct 21, 2010
I am a liberal. I pay my taxes(all of them) and I do not like Google. Furthermore you fail to note that the Big Oil also cheats the same way. Why do you leave that out and attack liberal? Oh I know! Because Big Oil is supported by the republican party!!!
Conservatives make me laugh sometimes. :)
norman619Oct 22, 2010
You should only pay those YOU are responsible for according to the tax code. It's not "cheating" when the code allows it. If the tax code allows you to take advantage of loop holes then there is nothing wrong with that.
Conservatives make me laugh sometimes but liberals make me laugh all the time. :-DComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
bigmike1976Oct 22, 2010
I approve this message! Well said noyb1....
logan2784Oct 22, 2010
True, lots of other companies use tax loopholes, but no one does this as well as Google. They cheat the MOST. 2.4% foreign tax? When it should be 30%? come on.
Closed AccountOct 22, 2010
Take an economics class you idiot
There is a point of maximum return from taxes, a "sweet spots", just like the perfect price for selling an item
norman619Oct 22, 2010
Something tells me even if he did he'd just fall asleep.
linuxpersonOct 21, 2010
No system based on the forced extraction of wealth via the threat and use of physical violence can be fair by any moral standard.
gransaterOct 21, 2010
Simple question
Does that opinion include situations where bankers change rules on you midstream, without advance notice, then threaten forced physical eviction, using, gulp, those darned police men we pay taxes to support, even when you follow their rules, or, you thought you did, and can prove it with a paper trail. Would you call that unfair?, Just wondering.
quisquisOct 22, 2010
I would say it's unfair. I would also say that you shouldn't sign a contract that states that they have the right to change the terms of the contract at any time (which you did for this to happen).Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
apokalyps2547Oct 22, 2010
No system of optional taxation can be practical or sane by any standard.
boulderbumOct 21, 2010
The "fair" tax eliminates corporate income tax altogether and shifts more of the tax burden to the (dwindling) middle class. If all tax is collected from sales of local products, you'll see international corporations buying more and more from other countries.
drmangrumOct 21, 2010
No, it doesn't. It shifts taxes to consumption. Corporations consume quite a bit.
Lets use Google as an example:
Electricity
Computers
Paper products
Tax services
Grounds keeping services
Legal services
Facility maintenance services.
Light bulbs
Internet conncetivity
Food services (they have a cafeteria on the grounds)
The beauty of the FairTax is that you can't cheat the system. When you buy something, you pay taxes on it. It happens right then and there.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
boulderbumOct 21, 2010
The "fair" tax itself is an example of beating the system. Consumption taxes in general are regressive by definition because poorer families have less discretionary income, using more of their paycheck to get by, thus ending up paying proportionally higher taxes than the rich who just tuck away their money, or spend it in ways that work around paying US taxes.
Corporations like Google would pocket their profits tax free, distribute dividends to already rich shareholders tax free, and I suspect they'd start buying fewer and fewer American goods and more an more foreign goods if the sales tax rates were lower.
u2canfailOct 21, 2010
You and I buy food to eat and clothing to wear. TAXED a over 20% I can barely eat now, and I seldom purchase clothing, my health insurance is over $1000 a month. That and the mortgage is all. I have no debt, no other payments. YOU really think over 20% is fair? Every human has to eat. It really hurts the poor and stuggling. Some of us will never own a yacht. My current tax rate is not that high. And will be down this year as my earnings plummeted.
stealthspcOct 21, 2010
"TAXED a over 20% I can barely eat now"
FairTax would abolish income tax. The federal government already taxes us pretty hard on our paychecks. It simply shifts where the money is taken from. You only have to pay tax if you choose to spend the money. If you don't, you can put that money in the bank and generate more interest.
funkyfreshflippOct 22, 2010
"Business-to-business purchases for the production of goods and services are not taxed"
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_faq_answers#1
elcadOct 22, 2010
Except the Fair Tax is going to be set up with it's on loopholes. Exceptions will be given and then abused. A two tier system with those that will get exceptions and those that don't.
Plus isn't the enforcement model for the Fair Tax based on snitches getting rewards?
apokalyps2547Oct 22, 2010
stealthspc: "You only have to pay tax if you choose to spend the money."
WRONG. Not all spending is a choice. A low-income family with no discretionary spending money will see a huge tax increase for just putting food on their table.
celticduckOct 23, 2010
Everyone would get a rebate on the basics, everyone...boulderbum...seriously read the book that do the math for yourself instead of just spouting off known untruths to prove your point. The poor would not be paying more at all. And considering that the poor tend not to buy the really high ticket items, and they buy more used goods their effective tax rate would drop dramatically.
celticduckOct 23, 2010
Oh an not to mention that now all the illegal immigrants would now be paying tax as well, adding a relatively big and currently mainly untaxed group of people into the system. Seriously, people against the fair tax because they are to the left, just do the math...that is it. It is the left that promotes science (real science, not made up creationist stuff), so just do the math, and actually read the book. Understand what you are talking about. The fairtax is the best idea to save our economy out there right now and we as a nation are not doing it for the reason of politics and ideologies arguing about differences rather than doing some math, finding the right thing to do and doing it.
elcadOct 22, 2010
I don't want the guberment snopping in on my every purchase.
apokalyps2547Oct 22, 2010
The "Fair Tax" will do one or both of the following:
* Not come close to balancing the budget
* Crush the lower / middle income classes
It's bar-room economics. Throwing ideas like darts without having an ounce of sound economic principle behind it.
ghengiskhan1Oct 21, 2010
Im sure all the good, wealth hating class warriors on the left will immediately stop using google if they have true convictions. Im sure they will write letters to Obama demanding an investigation into this. They will pound their fists on their desks, tighten up their sandals and march on Washington to demand that Google pay "its fair share."
...crickets chirping....
bluto36Oct 21, 2010
not when the ends justify the means
inajeepOct 21, 2010
Are you claiming that it is something you do? I haven't heard anyone call for a boycott. Jumping the gun a little aren't we?
WTF does this have anything to do with your 'left' dementia. Never heard of corporations funneling s**t through outside countries? It is more rare that any company that has a tiny presence outside of the country doesn't use this trick. Sort of how the non-profit lobbyist run companies are donating to the GOP elections right?
ghengiskhan1Oct 21, 2010
I think you have me confused with someone that finds Google's practices objectionable and someone that is a republican. I am neither. I was using a little known form of humor known anciently as "sarcasm". Maybe you should watch the Family Guy episode where Peter learns about sarcasm.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
inajeepOct 21, 2010
Ah yes, sarcasm in text form works so well. That is why the /s is not needed nor poe's law theorized. I also wonder if you have read any of the other comments in this thread parroting the same tone you claim to be sarcasm.
jhw539Oct 21, 2010
"march on Washington to demand that Google pay "its fair share.""
What a stupid rant. In case you didn't notice, yeah they are trying to tighten up the tax code to make Google AND Exxon, Microsoft, Monsanto, Dupont, etc ALL pay their fair share. And note that when Obama talks about that 4% tax increase on the richest 2% of the country, he is trying to RAISE TAXES ON HIMSELF to support our nation.
I know that the principles of projection make it hard for greedy assh**es to understand, but many wealthy people are fine with paying to support the greatest nation on Earth as long as they don't have to also support a bunch of rich greedy freeloaders not paying an equally fair share. (So don't even drag out that brain dead, what-the-hell-are-the-commons crap about being free to write an extra check to the treasury bulls**t.)
concernedcitiznOct 21, 2010
I find it humorous that our society has gone from "I want to be that guy, to F HIM, I WANT HIM TO BE AT MY LEVEL!" The rich get richer because they are smart enough to keep their money.
You have to work the system to get ahead... If you plod along you get nowhere... If you have more income, you are going to spend more... It's not like these businesses/people are hoarding money, they are investing and spending it! Why can't people see that?!?!?
The people crying foul that jobs are being lost to foreign countries are the same people who say "I'm not going to flip burgers, I'm to good for that! Let the illegals do it! I don't care, as long as i get my burger for $1!" or "I'm not going to sit here and push buttons in this job for less than $75 an hour!"
America feels they are too educated to do menial jobs... Then they piss and moan that the menial jobs are going overseas, and as a byproduct, so is our money...
jhw539Oct 22, 2010
"The rich get richer because they are smart enough to keep their money...
It's not like these businesses/people are hoarding money,"
Which is it? Are they hoarding or not?
The current wealth disparity in America is at levels unseen since the 20s. No free human society has EVER sustained this level of wealth disparity for long, and there is no apparent reason it should now. The 'revolution' won't involve gullitiens or riots in the streets, but if the current wealth concentration path doesn't level out don't be surprised by a President Kucinich or other disaster in a decade or so.
bluto36Oct 21, 2010
wow, if you tax Google AND Exxon, Microsoft, Monsanto, Dupont, etc ALL to " pay their fair share"
it will be the consumer (all of us) that pays it meaning mine and your tax burden is effectively higher. corporations do not pay taxes, people do. if you tax a corp it gets passed on to the price of their product.
jhw539Oct 22, 2010
Duh. And the free market will then properly determine which corporations are most efficiently producing products most in demand. We've been running our nation on credit for the last thirty years, it's time to buck up and pay our way. Or go ahead and let our infrastructure and global standing drop to the level of a 'second world' nation - rolling brown outs, interstates regularly impassable for months due to failures, questionable water supplies, no government research pipeline spawning the next Intel or Google, etc.
gordigorOct 22, 2010
So you are OK with a company, any company, not paying their fair share of taxes? Why does it have to be a left thing?
byeverywordOct 21, 2010
Google didn't break any laws. We look at this so closely because of how profitable they are but there are many businesses who do this. The article says (paraphrase) "Google is sheltering their profits while the US is battling a 13+ trillion dollar debt".
-Sorry, but the deficit has nothing to do with Google. They just have money. The government needs to learn something that all of its citizens have to learn- and that's spending less than you make.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
atomheartmotherOct 21, 2010
You have no problem that Google supports politicians who lecture the rest of America on "paying their fair share" and chastise Republicans for "shipping jobs overseas" while simultaneously funneling profits through foreign companies in order to avoid paying taxes?
Wow.
Closed AccountOct 21, 2010
You have to understand...the corporations are evil...unless they support liberals/progressives.
inajeepOct 21, 2010
Speak for yourself. How do you feel about it? I know I'm not happy about it. I don't like when any corporation does it. How about GOP's oil buddies? They on the up and up tax wise? *cough* Subsidies *cough*
I don't get the GOP/TPers very angry reaction to imagined stances. Seems to me you and the rest of them protest too much and are detracting from the real issue.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountOct 21, 2010
Speak for yourself.
The liberals are everywhere screaming about "the corporations"...it's a theme ...except for Google...cuz Google supports the liberals.
It's called hypocrisy.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
entroperOct 21, 2010
@quirkopatra, it sounds like you're attempting to compare saving money through tax loopholes to cutting off health insurance for sick people or taking advantage of poor people by giving them subprime loans they can't afford.
It's called priorities. C'mon, when was the last time you met a liberal who was thrilled about the government getting less tax revenue? ;)
inajeepOct 21, 2010
I did Quirk. I did speak for myself, your the one putting words into the left's mouth. Those tax holes should be closed for all corporations no matter who they contribute too.
bluto36Oct 21, 2010
its moronic to tax corporations in the first place.
geogeerOct 21, 2010
So if your employer withheld money owed to you through legal means, he should then tell you that it isn't partly his fault that you cannot balance your books?
danconiaOct 21, 2010
Google doesn't owe the difference in tax revenue to the government....
liberalstoogeOct 21, 2010
Corporate cronyism
linuxpersonOct 21, 2010
Not to be confused with capitalism.
justlisteningOct 21, 2010
I am sure that the huge political donations that Google made to Democrats made no difference.
thuktunOct 21, 2010
I'm curious to hear which tax regulations changed in the last 2 years that allowed or enhanced their ability to do this.
coloneljessupOct 21, 2010
HA! If this were any other company, the phony outrage from the lefties would be seething with vitriol and invective.
"The f**kin' corporations aren't paying their fair share of taxes, f**kin' republican scum, burn them at the f**kin' stake and s**t!"
I love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning.
As for me, I say more power to any company that can hide more of their money from the government.
And the fair tax is bulls**t. It will never come to fruition because it's a stupid idea based on stupid principles. It's the only tax code that gets to "count" tax revenue that doesn't exist.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
brewbeauOct 21, 2010
Well, before you start touting hypocrisy, I'm a lefty and I think this sucks. But I didn't really hold Google to a higher standard just because they donate to Democrats. They're still a corporation who's only job is to make money and find any loopholes they can to make sure they don't pay their share.
inajeepOct 21, 2010
Yep, bring it all down crashing around your ears. f**k medicare, military, safe food, roads and education. Taxes keep us from being Somalia as much as I don't like them I can see more than propaganda that you eat.
danconiaOct 21, 2010
Tell me, what is the fair way to do taxes then?
Either a man owns the fruits of his labor or he does not.
inajeepOct 21, 2010
A fair way is abiding the law. Tell me o wise one. If i work at a car factory do I own the car I have made?
danconiaOct 22, 2010
@inajeep: It depends on what your contract/agreement says. In most factories I know of I would say you do not own the car but rather the agreed-to wage from the car company (who ends up owning the car).
venusflytrap09Oct 21, 2010
Right, cuz the US was just like Somalia until the income tax was passed. /s
inajeepOct 21, 2010
No, I was inferring to the future. No govt + no taxes = no infrastructure/ s**t hole.
danconiaOct 22, 2010
@inajeep- Educate yourself:
http://www.freedomainradio.com/Traffic_Jams/Roads_Part_1.mp3
http://www.freedomainradio.com/Traffic_Jams/Roads_Part_2.mp3
angelbunnyOct 21, 2010
What hypocrisy?
Anyone should agree that companies should not be legally allowed to funnel money out of the country. It is bad for the economy.
It isn't a matter of what company did what, but what laws do what. Why should google, or any other company, be held accountable for something that is legal? Why not just make it illegal so google will stop?
civilunrestnowOct 21, 2010
This wouldn't be an issue of the Dum O cRATS would open their eyes and realize that CORPORATIONS DO NOT PAY TAXES! They simply pass on their tax burden (35% in the US) to their customers. Which means that just about everything you buy could cost LESS of the stupid liberals weren't so greedyComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
agmlauncherOct 21, 2010
While you're correct that corporate taxes get passed on to consumers, you're incorrect in stating that everything would cost less if corporations didn't have to pay taxes. Most prices are determined by what people are willing to pay. If people are willing to pay current prices for things, then that's where those prices will remain. The extra margin will just go to the company's revenue (which isn't a bad thing if it means more money for R&D & salaries)
linuxpersonOct 21, 2010
Same goes for the, "rich" which the liberals keep telling us is anybody making more than $250,000 a year. You really think the rich will just happily absorb a tax increase? f**k no, they will pass it on to the little guy (i.e. the consumer).
angelbunnyOct 21, 2010
the price of the item being sold is based on demand not profits. As in, raising taxes on people who make a million a year will not increase the cost of items being sold. economy 101Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
agmlauncherOct 21, 2010
That's not true. What people are willing to pay is what sets the price, and people WILL fork out a lot of money for something they need or want, even if it puts them in debt.
angelbunnyOct 22, 2010
"what people are willing to pay" is by definition demand which is exactly what I said.
angelbunnyOct 22, 2010
"what people are willing to pay" is by definition demand which is exactly what I said.
trick07Oct 21, 2010
What is with the hateful wingnut circle jerk? I thought you neo-con freepers liked not paying taxes. But now all of a sudden you have your panties all up your sissymary asses.
Google is a green, progressive company that has done great things for this country. The people who benefit from Google far outweighs the whining of a few tea-bagger's who all of a sudden want companies to pay taxes.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
geogeerOct 21, 2010
Green? I wonder what the power requirements of Google's server farms is.
So because you like the viewpoints of this company it shouldn't have to pay taxes? Nice.
angelbunnyOct 21, 2010
googles power consumption per server is less than just about any other company out there actually. They go out of their way to be efficient.
coloneljessupOct 21, 2010
Are you in the right thread? Because I don't see any of that. Either that, or you just didn't bother to read any of the comments and decided to post phony outrage anyway.
justlisteningOct 21, 2010
I had to open your comment to give you a negative thumbs down!
quisquisOct 22, 2010
is a negative thumbs down a thumbs up?
davidtcOct 21, 2010
Yet you are saying this while at the same time you liberals aren't in rage over a 2.4% tax rate when you want the current 35% to be raised cause it isn't high enough.
quisquisOct 22, 2010
HAHAHAHAHAH... This is EXACTLY what the "tea-bagger's[sic]" are complaining about. Idiots like you who are hypocritical in your stand on big bad corporations not paying their "fair share".
brothaslideOct 21, 2010
Loophole? What's that? Has Google broken any laws? No. Do they pay their taxes? Yes. Is Google paying their "fair share"? Not really sure what their "fair share" is or what that means. I have never seen "fair share" defined in the tax code.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
atomheartmotherOct 21, 2010
It borders on criminal that a company like this would support socialistic politicians who lecture the rest of America on "paying their fair share" and chastise Republicans for "shipping jobs overseas" while simultaneously funneling profits through foreign companies in order to avoid paying taxes.
And where are the Democrats who should be condemning this hypocrisy right now? Nowhere to be found.
drmangrumOct 21, 2010
Liberalism and hypocrisy walk together hand-in-hand.
brewbeauOct 21, 2010
Brilliant.
angelbunnyOct 21, 2010
do you even know what liberalism means? it has absolutely nothing to do with taxes.
danconiaOct 21, 2010
Politics and hyporcrisy walk hand-in-hand
brewbeauOct 21, 2010
I'm upset about this and more than I would be about a company that supports Republicans, just like I'm sure right wingers are more upset when one of the homophobes on the right ends up being gay. But the reason there isn't an uproar might be because this isn't at all uncommon for large corporations to do this, unfortunately.
atomheartmotherOct 21, 2010
"just like I'm sure right wingers are more upset when one of the homophobes on the right ends up being gay."
I don't know if you're being sarcastic or not, but yeah that kind of crap really does piss me off, as it's incredibly hypocritical as well. I mean if you're gay and don't want to come out, at least shut up about it.
brewbeauOct 21, 2010
Yeah, I was kind of being sarcastic. I don't think we can be partisan when it comes to hypocrisy, as both sides have had their moments. But how old is this story? Sometimes it takes a few days for the major media outlets to report anything, so there might still be a chance for some left-leaning uproar. I just think it's premature to say the left is hypocritical on this one. I would hope Google won't get a free pass on this.
atomheartmotherOct 21, 2010
I was speaking mainly of diggers. I expect next to ZERO outcry from the left in the "real" world... it's election season.
Kudos to you though, sir.
quisquisOct 22, 2010
... gotta love the civility.
inajeepOct 21, 2010
Seems to me you care more about beating up on the left than the actual issue. I see comment after comment about/ What about the left? Seems to me that corporations bypassing taxes should be a concern of everyone if it is effecting the almighty deficit the GOP/TPers have started to care about in the last couple of years.
atomheartmotherOct 21, 2010
There's no doubt that I'm relishing throwing some jabs now that Progressives are wounded, but after a couple of solid years of gloating and condescension from many in that camp, I think it's well-deserved, and that's particularly so in this case.
I do think most Americans agree that corporations have far too many tax loopholes and should have to pay what they legitimately owe. But the story here isn't one more company dodging taxes, it's the fact that this particular company is decidedly left, and supports candidates who DEMONIZE the GOP for supporting companies who do just that.
The hypocrisy is mind-boggling.
UphemismOct 21, 2010
"The hypocrisy is mind-boggling."
and yet, somehow expected.
inajeepOct 21, 2010
I think the hypocrisy is so mind-boggling to you and to many because of the amount hypocrisy the dems have vs the right. Choosing the lesser of the two evils isn't a fun thing I just hate it that it takes so much energy away from the actual issues. It is the reason why both sides are not working together to actually help us, they rather worry about elections and power.
urbanvoyeurOct 21, 2010
It doesn't border on criminality - it is the very definition of criminal.
angelbunnyOct 21, 2010
If you honestly think the dems are no for regulating the economy aka making this illegal then your forced ignorance borders absurdity.
atomheartmotherOct 21, 2010
Ummm angel, I really think a couple more semesters are in order before you attempt further comment. Really.
UphemismOct 21, 2010
no, if you think the democrats are any different than the republicans in their corporate whore-dome, then it is you that is ignorant.
Both the parties play this game to get the people fighting amongst themselves instead of the criminals taking their money. Please, smarten up.
inajeepOct 21, 2010
I think the GOP is more blatant about it. Aren't the Dems the union's bitch? The problem is that the money is in the corps hence the lobbyists hence the the non-profit GOP funded ads peppering the airways and cableways.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
geogeerOct 21, 2010
"Don't be evil"
08sosoOct 21, 2010
I guess tax avoidance isn't evil.
chahrlie5Oct 21, 2010
I love how google's leadership supports Obama and then does this.
Do as we say not as we do.
You libs are f**king sheep.
justlisteningOct 21, 2010
Yes... Google seems behind Obama all the way. Especially with that income redistribution thing, and paying a fair share of taxes. /S
brewbeauOct 21, 2010
You're assuming that all liberals are like neo-cons and anything their team does is okay. Of course, it's easy to stick to your values when you don't have any.
hipmanOct 21, 2010
I don't know how long you've been on this site but his assumption is correct.
brewbeauOct 21, 2010
Possibly. But no more correct than the same assumption about conservatives.
UphemismOct 21, 2010
@Brew - But no less either...
Unfortunately, here on digg, one truth is vehemently denied, while the other is greeted as common sense....
mediabiasOct 21, 2010
Guess they're part of the "more taxes for thee, but not for me" crowd.
mediabiasOct 21, 2010
Leftist company Google admits: taxes in the USA are too high!
chrisvazquez1Oct 21, 2010
Taxes are ALWAYS "too high". You're just salivating over the money you potentially made and are mad that it goes to schools, police, firefighters, military, and government. It's not like any of that contributes to the government in some way. /S
chrisvazquez1Oct 21, 2010
*-government +economy sorry stupid Digg edit times.
UphemismOct 21, 2010
The money wasn't "potentially" made, it was made.
Taxes are legalized theft, they seem to have used legal means, to avoid theft. Where is the problem?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
chrisvazquez1Oct 21, 2010
I'm sorry Uphenism where did you get your education? Who's roads are you driving on? What police protects you? What subsidized food are you eating? Who designed the jets in the airplane you fly? Who invented the craft that flew the satellite that serves your ISP? It's not legalized theft. It's called responsibility. You seem to be against something that is so integral to your life. I don't regret paying taxes.
pound23Oct 21, 2010
Google = Evil
bugmenot2Oct 21, 2010
So by that reasoning, all big corporations are evil.
hipmanOct 21, 2010
You do know what their slogan is right?.
bugmenot2Oct 21, 2010
It's not an official slogan. It was just a phrase a uttered by a Google employee that was held onto by the press back in 2001. It's impossible to be "100% good" when you're a company as large as Google.
pound23Oct 21, 2010
Google is not supposed to be like other corporations. They are different ... they strive not to be evil. They attack Microsoft and Apple for being somewhat evil. Google should fry.
Anyone else think the web has turned into a sickening display of Google Ads with a bit of content in between??
Yup. Google = Evil.
itsderek4realOct 21, 2010
Don't they make enough money already?!? C'mon now, give some back you greedy bastards!
shauncorleoneOct 21, 2010
The whole term "give some back" insinuates that government owns all wealth, and Google somehow stole it from its rightful owners.
linuxpersonOct 21, 2010
"Google somehow stole it from its rightful owners"
That's basically what modern day liberals keep telling us.
y0ssar1anOct 21, 2010
Alternate Headline:
Google goes Double Irish on Uncle Sam
cosmicvOct 21, 2010
Companies dont pay takes, they collect taxes... in the form of higher prices on the goods and services they produce. It's a ghost tax designed to hide the fact they REALLY are taxing the individuals. Lots of people are just too ignorant of basic economics to see it.
linuxpersonOct 21, 2010
"Lots of people are just too ignorant of basic economics to see it."
Yeah, like 99% of the liberals on digg.
davidnivenOct 21, 2010
No one is forcing me to use Google or any other company. But, government forces me to pay taxes. Big difference.
At least with Google, I get information right away that is fairly accurate. With the government...Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
thuktunOct 21, 2010
And forces you to use fire and police departments, roads, bridges, and so on. The bastards...
davidnivenOct 22, 2010
The practical benefits are not in question here. It's the principle at play - that of voluntary agreement versus mandatory compliance.
cosmicvOct 28, 2010
What does that have to do with the fact that corporations pass on taxes to the consumer? Also, since they tax ALL companies, you are forced implicitly to paying the tax, the company you buy from is incidental.
nolannightOct 21, 2010
Good for Google. If the U.S. had more reasonable corporate tax rates they wouldn't bother jumping through foreign loopholes. Google has a fiscal responsibility to minimize their tax liability. That's how a free market economy works, they stay profitable, their employees continue to have jobs and their shareholders stay happy.
spectecjrOct 22, 2010
Define "more reasonable". Put up or shut up.
nolannightOct 23, 2010
Who the hell are you to define the rules? Put up or shut up? Try to be nice.
Australia has a corporate tax rate of 30%. Germany has a rate of 29.8. China is 25%. Even Finland has a tax rate of 26%.
I'd say we should be somewhere in 25% rate area. No higher. Google was going to be paying in the neighborhood of 39%, so they rightly said, "Screw this" and legally found ways to keep more of their money.
madtechnologistOct 21, 2010
As long as they're liberal it doesn't matter.;
urbanvoyeurOct 21, 2010
I believe the correct legal term for this is "Money Laundering"
drgee2Oct 21, 2010
Good for them.
pureeviljesterOct 21, 2010
?
so the government raises taxes on the people and allow these companies to avoid taxes.
that's all this is, avoiding taxes.
schwitOct 21, 2010
It's only a loophole when you don't like it.
For all of those feigning outraged, Google is a publicly traded company and is required BY LAW to ensure stock prices are maximized. This requires expenses be kept to a minimum. Taxes are an expense.
kalvinbOct 21, 2010
When an individual takes advantage of tax laws it's called a "deduction." When a company does it it's a "loophole."
angelbunnyOct 21, 2010
^ if you've written a comment with the word liberal in it and you're referring to taxes of any sort, or economics in general, then you're a moron (or extremely ignorant).
just sayingComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
drmangrumOct 21, 2010
This is coming from someone who's extremely ignorant and exceedingly moronic.
Just saying.
scamper22Oct 21, 2010
I've said it before and I'll say it again, corporate tax makes no sense at all.
It just tries to hide the tax form the people so companies can play this stupid accounting game.
Only people benefit from money. Now you can petty and say 'well corporations are people according to the law'... but you don't believe that anyways...
In the end, the government will always get its money.
Money leaves a business in the following ways
1. Employee salaries (taxed via income tax)
2. Investor payouts (taxed via capital gains and divdend taxes)
3. Other B2B transactions (taxed when in the same way as above for the other business)
Get rid of the corporate income tax.
Increase taxes on the rich.
Companies will no longer play the tax shelter game. Most tax revenue will then be generated where most of the workers are. It's a people centric system.
But I know... killing the corporate tax would just look too business friendly even though it makes the most sense.
chrisvazquez1Oct 21, 2010
As usual people don't read the Goddamn article and decide to go on the comment thread. It is atrocious that ANY company does this. It's incredible to me that so many companies do this and some of the people here just say that it's okay because it's a corporation. News flash, I pay taxes too and now hundreds of companies pay less taxes than I do. The sad part is that people STILL want to cut taxes. Taxes are a necessary part of any democracy. I don't care if the corporation doing it is Google. I don't care about left and right. People aren't sticking to their principles anymore. It's just more idiotic people who like to brag like whiny little children. It's idiotic that one of the biggest corporations in the world pays less taxes than I do. Where the f**k is the outrage?!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
scamper22Oct 21, 2010
Do companies vote?
People vote. People should pay taxes.
Why double tax one group of people who work for companies?
Get rid of the corporate tax and only tax people.
Tax the rich more if you want, but the corporate tax makes as much sense as tying healthcare to your employer. It's a legacy of governments trying to hide taxes from citizens.
theswashbucklerOct 21, 2010
"Do companies vote?"
Give the Roberts court time...
thuktunOct 21, 2010
"Do companies vote?"
No, but the Supreme Court apparently thinks they get to speak as much as they want (and spend as much money as they choose) about who *you* should vote for.
I think I'd accept removing corporate taxes if corporations can never weigh into elections or lawmaking ever again. I doubt if corporations would accept that same deal.
chrisvazquez1Oct 21, 2010
Do companies vote? Yes they do through their CEO's and their employees. Corporations are considered people when it comes to financial situations. In many cases the CEO's can be charged for atrocities their companies have committed. So yes they can vote and they do have a responsibility to the country just like you and me.
bluto36Oct 21, 2010
news flash corporations dont pay taxes their customers do.
cost of doing business... you ever hear of it?
jhw539Oct 21, 2010
Well, taxes are evil and you know google's motto...
4517705Oct 21, 2010
This is an obscene money laundering scheme – plain and simple. And I don't care if technically it's legal – all that means is that enough politicians have been bought by enough lobbies over time to make the loopholes legal.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kyzzyxxOct 21, 2010
This has nothing to do with right or left, in and of itself, but the comments are nothing but right v left.
One word: Suckas
venusflytrap09Oct 21, 2010
I applaud Google for minimizing the amount of money they lose to government sponsored theft.
waaaahhhOct 22, 2010
yeah, keep cheering on billionaires for stealing money while you sit back and pay taxes on every measly dollar you make, you feeble pawn. f**king morons don't get it
Closed AccountOct 22, 2010
They largely use roads financed by the U.S. Government. Likewise with our country's infrastructure, laws favorable to development and hiring, and crucible environment for development. They're headquartered in the U.S. because it has the best environment for development.
If you want access to that great environment, you have to pay. Or, apparently, maybe not.
meburkeOct 21, 2010
This is why you shouldn't worry about the tax rates of the top 2% when you vote in November people!
Corporations are the true taxpayer not some CEO
metulaOct 21, 2010
Must read
gnotdiggerOct 21, 2010
Because it isn't illegal Google would be a stupid company if it was not exploiting the same weakness in our tax code as everyone else. It would put them at a huge disadvantage. In a voluntary system it is only the moral companies that are punished. To somehow extrapolate that it is hypocritical of Google to engage in such practices when by and large the practice of exporting jobs and tax revenue is a republican operation is more than disingenuous.
johnnydiggmeOct 21, 2010
Mmmmmm, Dutch Sandwich.
u2canfailOct 21, 2010
IT is so simple when you are not an American family, But a huge corporation! What did you make and what did you pay IRS?
Exxon 2009 made $ 45.2 billion
Exxon paid $0 taxes in USA, $15 billion taxes to foreign countries
http:..motherjones.com/mojo/2110/04/exxon-mobilpaid-zerp-incom-tax-offshore%20 shelter-wal-mart-general-electric-forbes
GE 2009 made $10.3 billion
GE 2009 paid $0 taxes
2008 the GAO found 2 out of 3 of Americas, largest corporations paid no taxes
Http://blogs.alternet/speakeasy/2010/04/06/outrageous-exxon-mobil-paid-no-income-tax-in-2009
niradgOct 21, 2010
Most of the comments on this thread are unbelievably moronic. Just because a corporation supports Democratic candidates doesn't mean it isn't going to try to do everything it can *LEGALLY* to lessen its tax burden. Do you think that citizens who are Democrats also voluntarily pay more taxes by leaving out deductions?
drgee2Oct 21, 2010
When the gov pisses away taxes wherever they come from,yes.
And I own google stock.
defendthyselfOct 22, 2010
Its a persons right to pay as little tax as legally possible. This ain't Russia and I am really freaking sick of this fair share crap. Go be a Commie if you want your fair share of gruel.
Each year, we pay as little as we can and write off everything & if you don't, you are a fool!